HUNTING BAN: Argument was a lie

P Newhouse
via email

I am writing to urge people into action over the proposed review of the hunting ban.

It is simple. The main argument put forward by the pro-hunting lobby during the run-up to the parliamentary vote to enact the current hunting ban was a lie.

More than 70 per cent of hunts in England had to use captive-bred foxes or imported foxes

They argued that hunting was necessary to control the damage done to the countryside by foxes.

In fact, according to the Countryside Alliance’s (a pro-hunting group) own admission, in the years leading up to the current ban on hunting with dogs, more than 70 per cent of hunts in England had to use captive-bred foxes or imported foxes, because there were not sufficient foxes to hunt in their areas.

Add to that the amount of damage done to land traversed by the hunts, and the numerous more humane options that exist for controlling any damage that might be done by foxes, as well as the horrendous suffering endured by the animals, and you must surely ask yourselves whether your consciences can allow you to stand by elected representatives that are moving to quash the ban on hunting with dogs.